01.02.2015 Views

69249454-chandler-semiotics

69249454-chandler-semiotics

69249454-chandler-semiotics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

TEXTUAL INTERACTIONS 183<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8222<br />

9<br />

10<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

20<br />

1222<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

30<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7222<br />

The philosophical concept of a universe of discourse (found also in<br />

Peirce) refers to a frame of reference shared by participants in an<br />

act of communication. ‘Linguistics is likely to explore all possible<br />

problems of relation between discourse and the “universe of<br />

discourse”: what of this universe is verbalized by a given discourse<br />

and how it is verbalized’ (Jakobson 1960, 351). Later he ventured<br />

further, noting that ‘the sometimes equivalent term “context” means<br />

not only the verbalized context but also the partly or nonverbalized<br />

context’ (Jakobson 1973, 319). By 1972 he felt able to issue a<br />

unequivocal declaration on this issue:<br />

Fourteen years ago [1958], Quine [the American philosopher]<br />

and I agreed diplomatically that the signified (signatum)<br />

belonged to linguistics and the referent (designatum) to logic.<br />

Now I think that the referent also belongs to linguistics . . . This<br />

does not mean to linguistics only, but it has a linguistic aspect,<br />

namely, what we call contextual meaning. The general meaning<br />

belongs to semantics; the contextual meaning, given by the<br />

whole context, by the universe of discourse, is also a linguistic<br />

fact.<br />

(Jakobson 1973, 320)<br />

Elsewhere, he was even more explicit – adding that contextual<br />

meaning included situational meanings (Jakobson 1972, 44). In<br />

definitively including context as well as code, Jakobson’s model<br />

moves beyond the original Saussurean framework, which ‘bracketed’<br />

any referential context outside the sign-system itself. It also supports<br />

not only the symbolic mode featured in both the Saussurean and<br />

the Peircean models but also the referential character of Peirce’s<br />

iconic and indexical modes. However problematic Jakobson’s model<br />

of the sign may be regarded as being, his model of communication<br />

constitutes a conceptual bridge between the two major semiotic traditions.<br />

While the determination of meaning in the Saussurean model<br />

depends upon the system of relations within a code and in the<br />

Peircean model upon a referential context, only the Jakobsonian<br />

model provides for both.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!